BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ========== Complaint Case No: 767 of 2010 Date of Institution : 29.11.2010 Date of Decision : 23.05.2011 Subhash Chand s/o Duli Chand, R/o House No.1898, Ist Floor, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1] M/s. Tata Tele Services Limited through Managing Director, Circle Office, C-125, Phase-VIII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali. 2] Tata Indicom, SCO 36,37, 38, Sector 8, Chandigarh. 3] Mr.Avinash Agent to sell Tata Photon and USB, Diksha Computers, SCO 72, Sector 20, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI PRESIDING MEMBER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for the complainant. Sh.Gaurav Goel, Adv. for OP-1 & 2. OP-3 already exparte. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Subhash Chand against the OPs under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date). Briefly stated, the complainant had taken Tata Photon + USB from the OPs with the monthly charges of Rs.950/-. The complainant had not signed any form for the purpose. He was told that the internet facility would be activated on his laptop on the same day. The complainant furnished one photograph and residence proof as required by the OPs on the next day. To the shock of the complainant, he received a bill of Rs.1566/- on pro-rata basis, which was not based on the unlimited plan as opted, rather the same was based on monthly charges of limited plan. After receiving this bill from the OP, the complainant made a complaint to the Customer Care Executive of OPs. He even visited the office of the OPs but he was told that since the documents with regard to the plan has not been signed by the complainant, the officials were helpless to adjust Rs.500/- in the bill. The documents alleged to have been filed by the complainant were also not shown to him. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the OPs many times but no action was taken by the company in his favour. The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint with the request that the OPs be directed to correct the plan from limited to unlimited, as requested, and pay compensation for the harassment. 2] After admission of the complaint, the notice was sent to the OPs. OPs No.1 & 2 filed joint reply and took objection to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishanan & Another, Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009. On merits, OP has admitted that the complainant was given USB Device with internet connection at concessional price. They have submitted that the complainant himself chose tariff plan “Photon Plus 1800 minutes @Rs.500/-”and signed the Tariff Enrolment form towards subscription. the bill of Rs.1566/- was correctly sent to the complainant in accordance with the Tariff Plan opted by the complainant. The complainant himself opted for change of plan with monthly rental of Rs.950/-. Hence, it is stated that the complainant has been correctly billed. Denying the rest of the allegations and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the OPs prayed that the complaint be dismissed. OP-3 was served with the notice for 17.1.2011 but since neither he himself appeared nor any other person has appeared on his behalf, he was proceeded against exparte on that date. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have also perused the record. OP-3 already exparte. 5] When the complainant pressed his case, the ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2, Sh.Gaurav Goel, Advocate raised an objection to the effect that this Forum had no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the present case in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Anr., Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009 wherein it has been held that:- “In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:- "S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes :- (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court." 6] The complainant is definitely aggrieved due to the harassment being caused to him by having to pay for a plan he has not opted for. Though we sympathise with him, at the same time, we cannot ignore the contention of the ld.Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2, who has placed on record the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court. As per this mandate, this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date). Unable to adjudicate on the matter, we can only dismiss the complaint. The complaint is therefore dismiss. No order as to costs. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate or Authority for redressal of his grievance as available under the law. 7] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room. Announced 23.05.2011
(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) PRESIDING MEMBER (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | MR. A.R BHANDARI, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
